As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Trump Flip Flops on Entitlements

Donald Trump’s top policy advisor suggested that, contrary to Trump’s primary season pledge, the businessman may indeed may cuts to entitlements.

“After the administration has been in place, then we will start to take a look at all of the programs, including entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare,” said chief Trump policy adviser Sam Clovis. “We’ll start taking a hard look at those to start seeing what we can do in a bipartisan way.”

Trump has also flip flopped on the minimum wage, saying recently it should go higher despite asserting during the primaries that it needed to stay where it is.

H/T Wall Street Journal.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

7 Responses to Trump Flip Flops on Entitlements

  1. Trump did NOT say the Federal Minimum Wage should be increased. He said the minimum wage should be a state issue, not a Federal issue

  2. I’m hoping this renovation of “entitlements” will separate welfare programs from the actual Social Security that we have each individually bought and paid for. Social Security was originally an annuity investment, just like any annuity we buy today, with a guaranteed return that was paid in full to the estate if the payer died before collecting his full benefit.

    Things like SSI and those international “Totalization Agreements”, even if they are continued under some other agency budget, have no business being included in expenses of the basic Social Security which is a Retirement Investment program.

    • The problem is–and someone has to face it–that people are collecting more than they put in–by far. The current payroll taxpayers are supporting those getting payments–2.5 people per payment collector–it’s pay as you go now…not an annuity. Yes, people are forced to pay and want to collect (I NEED to and so will may who can’t accumulate enough at today’s interest rates), but the system will have to be adjusted to suit…reality…without pulling the rug from under those already depending on it.

      • Oh gosh, I totally agree with you that the artificial depression of interest rates on savings has been horrific for those of us who actually saved toward our old age. It has devastated our personal finances and I can’t even write about it because it is simply too painful.

        And I think you and I may be in agreement that changes need to be made “to the system”, although not in the ways it may seem. :-)

        With Social Security, FICA is still producing more than is paid out, and the excess is still invested at interest, and the interest on that is supposed to be restored along with the principle to the Trust Fund.

        The trouble with the “conventional wisdom” that we are drawing more than we paid in is that it is simply not true if we look at where those payouts are going. People who *paid in* are not even getting back our own principle. It is the use of these funds to pay benefits to people who *did not pay in* that threatens the solvency of the system.

        Here’s some calculation I did a while back:
        If you invested $360 a month starting at age 20 at 6% compound interest, by the time you are 65, you will have $1,000,000.

        In the same way, if you have paid in $180 a month in FICA tax for your Social Security (which your employer matches for a total of $360), starting at age 20, by the time you are 65, you could draw $1,000 a month for 83 years before the government had paid you a similar amount.

        Even without a dime of interest, that $360 monthly investment over 40 years would still mean a payout of *principal only* of $720 a month for 20 years.

        None of us are going to get back anything like what we would have if our FICA had been invested where Congress couldn’t steal it to pay money to people who did not contribute. Don’t let any politician get away with claiming otherwise: Congress needs to stop spending our retirement savings that we have been paying in all of our lives. If they want to provide extra income to people who did not pay in, they need to move it out of the Social Security program to clarify which programs are 100% self-paid, and which are compassionate charity.